search_manuscripts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that results are not verified scholarly identifications and directs users to inspect via browse_page, which is useful. However, it gives no other behavioral details such as read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are absent from annotations as well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose and a key caveat in a concise manner, making it easy to read and understand.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the input schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of search modes, filters, or responsa options, nor does it describe the output structure or provide any comparison to related tools. Users would need to rely on the schema alone, which lacks semantic guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema includes complex nested objects like SearchFilters and ResponsaOptions, but the description provides no explanation of any parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but without context or examples, users cannot understand how to construct an effective query or what filters do.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches the public GenizahSearch corpus, identifying a specific resource and action. However, it does not specify what kind of search is performed (e.g., full-text, metadata) or what the results contain, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions that results are candidates and suggests using browse_page for verification, but it does not compare this tool to sibling tools like search_multiple_phrases or find_parallels, nor does it explain when one might be preferred over another.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.